A mountain-induced moist baroclinic wave test case for the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models
-
Published:2023-11-23
Issue:22
Volume:16
Page:6805-6831
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Hughes Owen K., Jablonowski ChristianeORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Idealized test cases for the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models are informative tools to assess the accuracy of the numerical designs and investigate the general characteristics of atmospheric motions. A new test case is introduced that is built upon a baroclinically unstable base state with an added orographic barrier. The topography is analytically prescribed and acts as a trigger of both baroclinic Rossby waves and inertia–gravity waves on a rotating, regular-sized planet. Both dry and idealized moist configurations are suggested. The latter utilizes the Kessler warm-rain precipitation scheme. The test case enhances the complexity of the existing test suite hierarchy and focuses on the impacts of two midlatitudinal mountain ridges on the circulation. Selected simulation examples from four dynamical cores are shown. These are the Spectral Element and Finite Volume dynamical cores, which are part of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System Model (CESM), versions 2.1.3 and 2.2, and the Cubed-Sphere Finite Volume dynamical cores, which is new to CESM version 2.2. In addition, the Model for Prediction Across Scales (MPAS) is tested. The overall flow patterns agree well in the four dynamical cores, but the details can vary greatly. The examples highlight the broad palette of use cases for the test case and reveal physics–dynamics coupling issues.
Funder
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference86 articles.
1. Chen, C.-T. and Knutson, T.: On the Verification and Comparison of Extreme Rainfall Indices from Climate Models, J. Climate, 21, 1605–1621, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1494.1, 2008. a 2. Colella, P. and Woodward, P. R.: The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for Gas-Dynamical Simulations, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174–201, 1984. a 3. Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., v<span id="page6829"/>an Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a 4. Dudhia, J.: A Nonhydrostatic Version of the Penn State-NCAR Mesoscale Model: Validation Tests and Simulation of an Atlantic Cyclone and Cold Front, Mon. Weather Rev., 121, 1493–1513, 1993. a, b 5. Durran, D. R. and Klemp, J. B.: A compressible model for the simulation of moist mountain waves, Mon. Weather Rev., 111, 2341–2361, 1983. a, b, c, d
|
|